Was the U.S. Supreme Court bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to decide Roe v. Wade the way they did?

Answer 1

It wasn't bound by stare decisis because there were no previous cases on abortion.

Having said that, cases decided by the Supreme Court on the issue of birth control and the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and common law principles did limit the options of the Court which is why it was a 7-2 decision.

Prior to Roe, in the birth control cases, the court had recognized a right to reproductive freedom as a fundamental right.

At the time of Roe, a fetus had never been recognized as a person for any legal circumstance. The laws against abortion were specific laws, not interpretations of any state's general statutes governing the killing of post-birth children or adults. If a fetus was killed in a car accident, there were no wrongful death claims. Likewise, a fetus did not have any inheritance rights prior to birth.

In short, the Court could have ruled differently without breaking the rule of stare decicis. However, as shown by the dissents, it was rather difficult to credibly make a distinction between Roe and the language used in the previous decisions on birth control in light of the traditional legal treatment of unborn children as having no legal status.

Unlike what some of the other answers suggest, the Court does consider stare decisis to be an important, but not binding consideration. There are a very limited number of cases where the Court has directly overruled a prior case. For example, the Court has never expressly overruled the Plessy "separate but equal" decision. They just kept on finding cases where separate wasn't equal until people stopped citing to Plessy as a controlling case.

Answer 2

The US Supreme Court is not bound by stare decisis. Each justice decides for himself or herself the extent to which he or she will be guided by the prior decisions of the court.

"[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions." Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).

The court determined, as a matter of policy, that the time had come to recognize that reproduction entails a critical issue of autonomy: a woman's control over her body. Once the outcome was decided, the justices of the court set about finding the precedents that would show that the case was harmonious with prior jurisprudence. The Court did not create the right of privacy when it decided Roe v. Wade, but it certainly took it one one giant leap forward.

Answer 3

'The Court' is not conservative... although most of the sitting justices were appointed because they supposedly passed some litmus test indicating they would vote conservative, they have proven anything but... the only concession being late term abortions. Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned, too many activist judges with lifetime appointments would countermand any voting otherwise by the people, the same way they have immigration, etc. It would be nice if abortion had not become just another form of birth control, and people would take more resposibility for their actions... and now with the morning after pill, who needs a condom?

Answer 4

No. They are never bound by stare decisis. They're the ones who set precedents and they can just as easily overturn one as well as make new ones. All the courts below them must follow the precedent though and if they don't someone can appeal from the lower courts (trial courts and appeals courts) to higher courts, i.e. Supreme Court.

Answer 5

No, there is always something different about every case. Sooner or later, the right case will come along and Roe v. Wade will be out the window.

Answer 6

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed its own decisions in well over 100 cases.

Answer 7

The right to privacy in the Constitution not states rights

Answer 8

They haven't in the past... why would one think that they should start doing so now... on *one* issue?